Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130113
STATION
CSPAN 7
CSPAN2 5
CNNW 2
MSNBCW 2
FBC 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
LINKTV 1
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
enhancing and building more power grids. pakistan needs power. it needs access to energy. afghanistan needs power. if you create interdependency between these countries, especially countries that are not on friendly terms with each other, which will enhance the chances of stability to allot more more expensive projects could be pipelines and others, but at least the national grid, railroads. fortunately, pakistan is extending its railroad into kandahar. the railroad from central asia will connect now across afghanistan, north and south. we can really rebuild afghanistan as a crossroad or roundabout of trade. that is key. internally, improving access to capital in afghanistan by providing political incentives, in terms of political assurance, making more credit available for investment by international companies in afghanistan, allowing afghan companies to have access to easier credit -- these are the key issues that could help afghanistan on the economic front. more importantly, a clear message about the future of afghanistan that would give the investors and everyone else a sense of confid
.s. and pakistan on that is better coordination between also there appears to be a better clarity of u.s. positions relating to the very important questions. >> i have offered a few comments that have made mr. my experience. i do not have any association with them. texas on liked several others have made policy at stakes. pakistan has suffered but it is not all on the ground or in on the floor of many of their contributions to the region. i would also say they cannot place the blame for all of the problems on to others. the first point of a to make here, this is done talk about credit bet. not as much now. i have not met for several years while i was i in the form office any responsible person from anti civilian leadership who would be seeking to go to afghanistan or who would be considering the taliban as an asset for the future. i am not going to go into details of these as far as the taliban as concerned. there is no question of popular returning to get in why i did enter the mid 1990's. there are reasons for this. there are to be details. i was the before the moment. there is one thing it. paki
turkey and pakistan. so that constitutes the click of the taliban leadership in formally. second is the military side. people who may not be on the ground in afghanistan leading fighters but directing the insurgency on the day-to-day level. they either distressed u.s. intentions lower point* through the 2002 through 2004 period and many are people that did try to cut the deals and were rebuffed so know are on the military side. said talking to them as well there is a sense that they can reconstitute the '90s taliban. so if they hold on a little bit longer they can do that. but it is to understand the different position those with ordinary afghans with a focus on the troop number and talking whether there is 6,000 or 3,000 troops in afghanistan. that is important in the village where it is thought they would say they don't want any troops but in my discussion they don't think about it which is what we face today is a question of state formation. and in 2004. what i mean by that is and attempting to build the afghan state what happened was on the one hand they put money into kabul
afghanistan, and western pakistan. to get at them itself when the united states was puzzling over its resurgence in afghanistan as a military challenge that had been neglected in the years after the 2001 arab emirates that it presented itself as a grave dilemma to the obamacare administration so we try to provide the regularity about this phenomenon recognizing the cliche image of the of one i aid malaya and his band of fanatics was inaccurate and falsified the problem. said not to prosecute a particular view of the taliban but look at its diversity and aspects of the character fetter not part of american debate to. i am really proud of this book and peter whose leadership from new america has been a joy in my office to support him and watch him. the last thing i want to talk -- that i want to say is with the research is part of a much broader body of work that we engaged in it and hope your subscribers and readers as you are with foreign policy with conferences and publications, anyway we are pleased to have this occasion and have a discussion about the subjects that are in the book
. affiliated movements have taken us beyond the core leadership in afghanistan and pakistan, including the middle east, and east africa, central asia, and southeast asia. although each group is unique, all aspire to advance al qaeda's agenda by stabilizing the companies in which they operate and attacking the u.s. and plotting to strike it u.s. homeland. in south asia, al qaeda continues to pose a threat from its base of operation in pakistan's tribal areas. in order to use that to carry a attacks against a homeland as well as our interests and those of our allies and partners in pakistan, afghanistan, india, and europe. the united states faces to counter terrorism charges -- a direct threat posed by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and the individuals and charities that flow from the region to al qaeda and its affiliates from world. on this point particularly, i want to emphasize severing the pipeline is a major part of what we're doing in its administration. al qaeda has shifted its activities to the relative safe haven of northern mali where it is training fighters and other allied
and significantly discordant situation in both afghanistan and across the border in pakistan. so i think you probably are going to see an unraveling gradually. i think there's only one afghan brigade that is capable of acting independently. these forces need air support intelligence, all of the kind of logistics and other support that is necessary to be effective. fighting forces, they're not going to have that, and so i am much less an optimist about this eventual outcome. but when you look at the middle east, look at what happened at iraq, look at what happened in syria, the united states no longer leading from behind waiting from behind, and then you look at the decisions concerning afghanistan, you can understand why people throughout the region believe the united states is withdrawing and that is not good for the region. >> schieffer: let me ask you this senator. we went to afghanistan in the beginning because we wanted them to deny al-qaeda a safe haven the terrorists who caused 9/11 and i think to some extent we probably have done that. but as long as they have a safe haven in pakist
the region including pakistan. we welcome recent steps that have been taken in that regard and will look for more tangible steps because a stable and secure afghanistan is in the interest not only of the afghan people and the united states but of the entire region. and finally we reaffirmed the strategic partnership we signed last year in kabul, an enduring partnership between two sovereign nations. this includes deepening ties with trade, commerce, strengthening institutions, development, education, and opportunities for all afghans. men and women, boys and girls. and this sends a clear message to afghans and to the region as afghans stand up they will not stand alone. the united states and the world stands with them. now, let me close by saying that this continues to be a very difficult mission. our forces continue to serve and make tremendous sacrifices every day. the afghan people make significant sacrifices every day. afghan forces still need to grow stronger. we remain vigilant against insider attacks. lasting peace and security will require governance and development that delivers
to be there in 2020? you know? >> the place that you're looking at is very close to pakistan and that's where the insurgents are coming from. they take safe harbor in pakistan. was there talk about how at the end, that is the crux of the problem. you are never going to be able to destroy this insurgency because it houses itself and gets replenished in a foreign country. >> all the time. in fact, pakistan is mentioned so many more times in the book than bin laden or al qaeda. it's like, you know, the enemy that dare not speak its name for the u.s. they do what they can do. obviously, the drone wars are being fought independent and separate in many ways. but, it's not just weapons and bad guys that are coming over the border, it's expertise. it's sharp shooters and snipers and people who teach the locals how to build ieds. >> the thing that struck me about this is because all great stories about war often get, make you understand the disconnect between the very grand plan strategies at the top, even at the level of general mcchrystal and company and what it translates into for the guy. on the g
news just coming in now. we are getting reports that a roadside bomb in pakistan has killed 17 soldiers and wounded 22 others. we will have more on that as we get it. pilgrims are that area in northern india for an event held every 12 years. it is the largest gathering of hindus in the world. our reporter is in the city where millions are affected by the two month festival. >> these are just some of the early arrivals. early arrivals.
as a base welcome back to haunt us again. that has to do with pakistan. if the radicals take pakistan the government will be vulnerable and if the radicals takeover, not just a base for terrorism budding control of over 60 nuclear weapons to make them an instant threat. lori: 66,000 troops in afghanistan, a government cover-up, security forces cannot fight on thr own own, with the president favors a the drawdown? what is the appropriate presence? >> the president does not think the terrorists are a threat. he said the global war and terrorism is over. he thinks the appropriate number is zero. we're not there to benefit the afghans by ourselves. we would never make afghanistan into a western-style nation and karzai said the tours will be coming soon. i don't think so. be right back where we were. lori: then is it an utter failure? there is a legitimate threat of terrorism in afghanistan. >> absolutely. it is the longest war in history but it was not fought with the intensity of world war ii or the civil war. it is because they have a long time horizon. so we need presidential leadershi
threat to united states faces is between the mountains of pakistan and afghanistan. previouslythese are issues thate addressed. where does he think afghanistan is going to go? what did he think at this one point that it was such a vital and strategic interest? the president himself tries to address that issue. senator hagel has made a lot of statements over the years about the middle east and central asia that i think have to be addressed. it is not simply about israel and the u.s.. it is about the statements and the votes that senator hagel been made, sanctions on iran, talking with the dictatorship in syria about not signing a resolution be, asking europe to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization. votes against signaling that the i iranian revolutionary guard was a terrorist organization. all these things that suggest that his views about the middle east and the palestinian-is really conflict, brought together with those -- israeli conflict, brought together with those other statements. people often say that presidents should be given to deference to his appointees. i agr
, that i'd never heard of, at the bottom of three steep mountains, 14 miles from the pakistan border, 53 u.s. troops facing an onslaught of up to 400 taliban. a horrific day. i held my son and heard about how eight other sons were taken from us that day, and i just wanted to know more. and i couldn't get it out of my head. the coverage was all along the lines of, why would anybody but an outpost at the bottom of three steep mountains 14 miles from the pakistan border. nobody ever answered the question, and when the military investigated it, they just said, yeah, there was no strategic purpose for that 0 to be there, sorry, and moved on. and there was -- i was haunted by it. i wanted to know more, solve this mystery. why would anybody put a camp there? and it became a mystery i had to solve. and then the more i found out about the outpost and the more i found out about the attack on the outpost, i heard just some amazing feats of heroism, all agent of the men who died, died either trying to engage the enemy or trying to save one of their fellow soldiers. every single one of the eight who we
of afghanistan and pakistan -- previously opposed the surge in afghanistan. these are issues the need to be addressed. where do we think afghanistan is going to go? why did he think at one point that afghanistan was such a strategic interest? senator hagel has made a lot of statements over the years about the middle east and central asia that i think have to be addressed. israel-u.s. relationships have to be put into context. i think the caller started them. but the fact is not simply that it is between the u.s. and israel, there are statements the senator made on the sanctions on iran. top of the dictatorship in syria. not signing on to a resolution, asking europe to designate hezbollah as a terrorist organization. on and on. the context suggests that his views about the middle east and his use about the palestinian it-is really conflict have to be brought together with those other statements to get a bigger picture of how he thinks about the middle east. i think it is rare that a nominee -- i do think that people often say the president should give deference to his and -- to his app
in afghanistan and pakistan and in that region share about the u.s. footprint in that part of the world. >> but if the reason we are there in addition to helping stabilize that country is to secure our own security here, what happens if when we pull out afghanistan devolves into civil war? does that pose threats for us and our security? >> well, absolutely. what we've seen in the past is that when there's a country like afghanistan that is unstable, without a central government, where people can operate in the shadows and plan attacks, the united states is susceptible to that environment. it's not only here in the united states but u.s. interests around the world. and that's why the u.s. has to maintain or believes it has to maintain that presence there. there's no doubt that going forward many of these issues are going to come to the surface. afghanistan could find itself in a very bloody civil war. iraq after the u.s. withdrawal has not gotten necessarily better. there's still violence. there are still attacks. but to some extent u.s. interests are a little more secured as a result of
; thailand, pakistan and turkey. although her husband met with government leaders, she again had her own schedule of events. in the end, she wrote, it left us dizzy but happy that in such a short time so much could be accomplished. in november of 1958, the couple traveled to london where pat wowed much of the british press with her natty wardrobe and unspoiled manner. the following year they went to the soviet union and poland. in moscow, dick confronted nikita khrushchev in an exhibition of american consumer goods. pat once again had her own agenda of visiting orphanages and hospitals. he might have gotten more headlines, but pat's interaction with soviet women and children also made a lasting impression. she actually, there were all kinds of pictures offer happening out candy and bubble gum to the soviet children that made it into "life" magazine. perhaps more importantly, her pointed questions to nikita khrushchev about his wife's absence from the festivities led to mrs. khrushchev as well as the wives of other soviet officials suddenly appearing at the events during the rest of the v
is we favor the kill and capture peace especially in pakistan and yemen and somalia and other states. i don't think we have great strategies to wage political warfare and that is a gap that needs to be built and i think we can be -- we can draw lessons from the days of of the cold war as to how to do that. and the need to do that was brought home to me by a meeting i had a few years ago. i think it was in 2008 in baghdad with a fellow named i love lucy who was a very brave iraqi parliamentarian, either brave for suicidal and maybe some combination of the two, who dared to visit on a couple of occasions and thought iraq should normalize elections with israel for which sentiments face attempts to give him presents in an iraqi court. he did not however manage to stop the extremists who have tracked his sons and killed his two sons for his retaliation for visiting israel. he ran for parliament in one of seidin 2005 but i remember meeting with him in his living room in baghdad in 2000 where he was showing the fact that he had little money to run for re-election and little money with like-min
was speaking and she said i speak here to remember the 16-year-old in pakistan killed in a drone attack when he was simply investigating what was happening. he had held a news conference the day before to say what's happening in my country and she said, i speak for 16-year-old alachi, the son of the cleric in yemen. 16 years old born in denver. how was it two weeks after his father was killed he was kill in a drone strike. this goes to john brennan who was i want natalie involved with this and ultimately to president obama. this whole program of drones, of targeted killings, must be questioned. what madea benjamin said when she stood up is i speak for the constitution and my love of law and order. these are the kinds of debates we should be having. >> and there's no question from all of the warning that john brennan is intimately involved with the target-killing program. every insider account -- >> he chooses the targets. >> in fact, there's a sort of like recurring thin about him as this priest-like presence. this is a "washington post" profile of brennan. some white house aides describe him a
is i think ensureing that afghanistan will become destable and affect pakistan. the worst signal to send to the iranians and it is heart breaking. >> shannon: the president will say as commander in chief it is his decision. >> it is. >> shannon: he s making this decision on his best advice. >> he is a good politician and a lousy general. >> shannon: he campaigned on telling the american people that we were going to leave and now he is sticking to what he promised. >> in 2008 he campaigned this is the good war we must win and the place we have to get right. he campaigned there s no better supporter of the state of israel in 2012 than barack obama. now, here he is picking chuck hagel the most antagonistic senator during his time against the state of israel. he owns iraq and afghanistan. the bush term is finally over. this s his presidency. he left iraq without any troops, al-qaeda is coming back in large numbers and iraq is going to fall apart. and what you see here is the beginning of the reemergences of the taliban in the southern part of afghanistan. we will lose all of the gain
." >> the former u.s. ambassador to the european union. the former former secretary of pakistan on the future of afghanistan. the discussed regional security and political uncertainty. this is 90 minutes. this is the latest installment of you well. i think we all not that we are at an inflection point. president kazia is hip. we have the ambassador to afghanistan amount of the things. we have ambassador who among the other is was the foreign minister. he is the ambassador to china. we have the ambassador of afghanistan to the united states. they have been intimately involved with respect to the important issues regarding afghanistan with the real issues of the region. we call the event of "back to the feature." some have spoken to be before about this. i think the bullet that even large as the discussion goes on. we have fundamental issues to talk about the military presen
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)